Thirumurugan v. State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP NO. 1594 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-01-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 1594 of 2025 1.Thirumurugan 2.Vimalnadhan 3.Murugan 4.SAkthivel 5.Durai 6.Sivakumar 7.Selvam Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.555 Of 2024 Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):
S.L.Venkatesan E.Sumathi For Respondent(s):
S.Santhosh Government Advocate (criminal Side),madras High Court.
ORDER
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.555 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2) BNS, 2023 r/w. 21(1) Mines and Minerals Act, (Development and Resolution Act), 1957 and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that they belong to Manmalai Village, Se.Nachipattu Village, Chengam Taluk. During the temple festival, the petitioners opened the check dam without obtaining permission for festival purpose without understanding the consequences. He would submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.
3. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the accused, who are the villagers of Manmalai Village, Se.Nachipattu Village, Chengam Taluk, had illegally opened the shutter of the irrigation check dam without the knowledge of the complainant, thereby causing a loss of water. He would submit that the petitioners have no previous cases pending against them.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the view that the petitioners
be granted bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chengam, Tiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that:
[a] if the petitioners fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday at 06.30 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, on every Saturday at 06.30 p.m., until further orders.
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J [f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
28-01-2025 Lpp To
1. State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police Chengam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. Crime No.555 Of 2024 CRL OP NO. 1594 of 2025